You mean different people have different things they find important and sometimes threads with different people say conflicting things? Obviously, the logical conclusion is that the people who don’t agree with you hate women. It couldn’t possibly be that you’re taking the opinions of different people in different threads and sticking them together, then finding a contradiction! No, clearly it’s all just hatred of women, and anyone who criticizes St Hillary is doing so because they’re sexist.
Of course the people who have deep misunderstandings about American society would be surprised that the Loser would be looked upon less favorably than the Winner. Only someone who has no more than a casual acquaintance with American culture could be surprised at this outcome. Less than a year after the greatest upset in the history of American politics, you thought the Loser would be liked more than the Winner. Wow. If you are inside the US, please unplug and take a walk. If you are outside, please idk read Mark Twain or something.
It’s not sexism per se. People see Joe as an affable genuine nice guy type while Hillary is noted for being cold and phony. There may be some sexism that plays into the background of all this but when comparing the two as presidential candidates Biden has a clear edge in the personality thing. You could also say that he is more qualified having been VP for 8 years and having been elected to office more times than Hillary but I’m not sure that really factors into it. Take away all other differences and there could be some sexism that favors Biden, but in light of the other circumstances it doesn’t come into play.
Diamond Joe is a supremely charismatic guy. His speeches don’t sound like a list of charges from a grand jury indictment. Hillary on the other hand suffers from a profound lack of charisma. Didn’t matter to me or my cohort, but out there in flyover country “would I wanna throw back a beer or six with him/her” is a major factor. I highly doubt that the desire for a candidate that is genuine-looking and personable is a gender thing, likely loads of women out there fitting that description, Hillary just isn’t one of them.
I noticed you didn’t really address the question. I didn’t figure you would.
Right, and so why is it that Joe Biden is “affable and genuine” when he’s voting for policies that, in the opinion of many who bang on about Hillary Clinton, resulted in a ruinous foreign conflict and nearly destroyed our financial system. Why does one get a free pass while the other is basically a witch?
I think that’s what I’m saying. And perhaps if you took time to talk with a woman who’s fighting tooth and nail to be viewed as an equal by a fraternity of her superiors in the world of IT and finance, they’d probably tell you that “some sexism that plays into the background” has real world consequences. From the male perspective, it’s in the background; from the female perspective, it’s reality and very much in the foreground.
Could be? More like absolutely. I remember when Hillary decided that her idea of being First Lady wasn’t just wearing dresses, standing by her husband’s side, and smiling when the cameras were on.
Is there a female politician who is well-known for having “charisma”? Who do we think of when we think of charismatic leaders? Who do we think of when we think of presidents? Is there a female politician who can get away with saying some of things that have slipped out of Joe’s mouth? See, that’s my point. Men are charismatic. Men are brave and bold. Being a woman and going after power is still apparently very un-womanly. Deny it all you all want, but you’re getting intellectually burned here and you know it.
Don’t get me wrong - I like Joe Biden and would have gladly voted for him as a nominee. But don’t deny that there’s a double-standard. I’m relieved to see that few people are disagreeing that a) they are pretty much cut from the same cloth and b) that they have a different reputation. It seems what people are resisting is the charge that Hillary Clinton was a victim of male chauvinism, and it seems like that whereas might accept that such a thing exists along the right side of the political spectrum, people on the left are really pushing back at such charges. I think I’ve probably exposed something here.
Interesting article. According to Nwanevu of The Slatest;
According to Bloomberg, more than a fifth of Clinton voters now say they view her unfavorably compared with only 8 percent of likely Clinton voters saying the same in Bloomberg’s last poll before the election. Bloomberg’s John McCormick writes that interviews with some of those polled suggest that the decline has less to do with Clinton losing than it does with the Democratic Party’s identity crisis. “Many said they wished Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had won the Democratic nomination,” he writes, “or that they never liked Clinton and only voted for her because she was the lesser of two bad choices.”
That’s one of way of looking at this issue. However, I prefer the quote attributated directly to Bloomberg;
The former secretary of state has always been a polarizing figure, but this survey shows she’s even lost popularity among those who voted for her in November.
It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that Hillary could not get a lower rating, then or now, from Republicans. Ol’ Hillary’s low rating is a direct result of her loss of favor with the Democrat collective. Democrats don’t like her. It’s interesting that there are still Democrats who support/excuse/pity ol’ Hillary. When ol’ Hillary lost, again, the Clintons lost the last of their political clout.
It’s also interesting that there are still Democrats who simply do not understand how U.S. Presidents have been elected. According to the well-established existing rules, ol’ Hillary lost the only race for President that actually exists.
What is this “Democrat collective” you speak of? And how do you know how it thinks?
Sure hope Michelle Obama doesn’t lurk here.
This is more of a case by case basis. Romney didn’t seem to get away with 47%, Hillary didn’t get away with deplorables, but Trump somehow got away with “grab them”. Depends on the woman, what she says and how her people spin it.
Elizabeth Warren
Kamala Harris
Tammy Duckworth
…
It would be interesting to see Michelle Obama’s favorability/likeability numbers change after she (hypothetically) declared her candidacy for high office. Because they almost certainly would change, and not for the better.
This is well-documented with regard to Hillary herself: people liked her a lot better when she wasn’t asking for a promotion (aka running for office). Whether it’s an American thing or a Human thing, ‘we’ don’t much like women who put themselves forward:
And that explains Sarah Palin how?
When Romney lost to Obama, do you think then became more popular among Republicans, or less? How about McCain? When John Kerry lost to Bush, he was despised.
If you lose an election against someone your constituency hates and despises, is that going to make them like you more, or less?
The sole positive result of the 2016 election is at least it means the end of Hillary Clinton in politics.
Sarah Palin was elected to a national office? I must have missed that.
The average American is about as smart as a banana slug. You didn’t know that? Where have you been?
This proud people revolutionized the world, organized an amphibious assault against the continent of Europe, invented the transistorized computer, placed a man on the Moon, and brought him safely back to Earth. Their descent to banana slug-level cognition is remarkable. Perhaps some malware is passing through their information systems, a la computer virus. We can only wish it’s not too contagious, and the outbreak can be confined to the Fifty States.
IIRC, Steophan is a Brit. Perhaps the malware is affecting Anglophones more generally.
I didn’t realize his/her comment was only made towards women who pursued national office. And national office only.
you should be angry at white women too, since they voted 53-43 Trump over Clinton.
Like Trump, Biden has a similar “shoot-from-the-hip,” say what pops into your head manner. And a bit of a temper. If nothing else, he could have more effectively shut down Trump’s BS and wouldn’t have let him set the narrative. I’ve re-watched some of the debate footage, and I remember something Jon Stewart said about Clinton on a podcast:
(italics mine.)
I don’t think Biden would have had that disadvantage.
Don’t underestimate how much “appearing genuine” is worth. I look back and can see how Clinton looked not “genuine,” as though she was playing a role. And pretty much every nominee who has run and lost since 1980 has been stilted and dry. Mondale? Board. Dukakis? Plank. Bush I? Timber*. Dole? 2x4. Gore? Beam. Kerry? Log. McCain? Joist. Romney? Dowel. H. Clinton? Rafter.
Winners?
- Reagan? “The Great Communicator.”
- B. Clinton? Could tell you to go to hell and you’d happily set out convinced the trip was your idea.
- Bush II? Folksy, laid-back, “this is who I am.”
- Obama? Inspiring orator who could give Reagan and FDR a run for their money.
- Trump? “I don’t give a shit what anybody thinks, I’m going to tear down all of this stuff which isn’t working for everyone!”
- GHWB was pretty much riding Reagan’s coattails in '88.
The poll doesn’t really mean much. A more useful poll would be a direct comparison: Whom do you view more/less favorably, Clinton or Trump?
You’d still get a lot of “less favorables” from Republicans towards Hillary, but few from Democrats. If you ask me if I like beets, I’m going to say no. If you ask me if I like cooked carrots, I’m going to say no. If you ask me which I prefer, I’m going to say cooked carrots over beets any day of the week.
Let’s not even go there with the oysters and clams, or whatever that line form Spartacus was! 